Scrums: Why does anyone still listen to what Chris Alexander says?

As they did last week, the New Democrats pressed the government in question period Monday on the so-called “secret” Conservative fund – the one reportedly controlled at the behest of the prime minister’s chief of staff.

Much to the delight of their opposition foes, the Conservatives have been somewhat inconsistent with their messaging on this matter. On Thursday evening, Conservative MP Chris Alexander told the CBC “the fund does exist.” On Friday, his caucus colleague Pierre Poilievre said what appeared to be the opposite: “There is no such fund.” On Saturday, Alexander went on the CBC’s The House and said the money in question was “Conservative Party of Canada funds… It’s all coming from the same source. Part of that broader spending goes to the prime minister.”

So, obviously, the NDP wanted a few more details.

“Can the parliamentary secretary who was not telling the truth please stand and explain this contradiction?” NDP MP Craig Scott asked the Commons Monday afternoon.

“Mr. Speaker, can I tell you a secret? Do you promise you will not tell anybody?” Poilievre began his reply, apparently channeling the Beatles. “Do not tell the NDP. Do not tell the CBC. The Prime Minister of Canada is the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, and when there are Conservative Party of Canada expenses, including from its leader, it is paid by the Conservative Party.”

Scott wasn’t convinced. He put it to the government again: Was it Poilievre or Alexander “who has been telling the truth to Canadians?”

Perhaps that’s a simplistic question, but this is politics. It’s not really up to the NDP to parse the details for the Conservatives. That’s something the Conservatives should have been doing in advance of allowing their MPs on national television and radio. But surely it’s becoming a familiar problem.

Back in 2012, the government had a similar clarity-of-messaging problem over the F-35 fighter jet contract, and whether it existed or not (it did not). Again, Alexander was a point-man on the file. In August, he told CBC television that there “was a misunderstanding, to some context, in the Canadian public opinion, to some extent perpetrated by the opposition, who claimed that a decision had been made, contracts had been signed, obligations had been undertaken, and that is not the case.”

Alexander also told the CBC in 2012, again defending the F-35 procurement, that it was “not unusual” for the government to buy military hardware that did not meet “all of the developmental requirements.” That seemed to contradict a statement from Public Works minister Rona Ambrose in 2010 when she told a House committee the government did not need to run a competition for the F-35 because they had “a clear statement of requirements and we know we’ve done the research that there is only one aircraft that fulfills those requirements.”

But as much as politics is about not caring too much about the inconsistencies in narrative or argument from your opponent, it’s also about seizing opportunity.

Weirdly, Alexander’s proclivity to spout messaging that’s contradictory to other things his caucus colleagues are saying could be good news for the Conservatives now. That so much of the opposition’s current argument against the government on the alleged “secret” fund hinges on something Chris Alexander said (that it exists), gives the Conservatives an easy out, should they want it. They could just say that when he first explained the fund, he was completely wrong. That, people might believe.